Tuesday, May 17, 2011

Starting early 2007 Dr Zernik has reliably informed Rabbi Bernhard of Samuels’ racketeering in the courts. Rabbi Bernhard has done nothing to stop the retaliation that ensued, and Samuels continues to be listed as Member of the Board of the synagogue regardless of his well-publicized track record in the intervening years.

Jonathan Bernhard Sandor Samuels

Adat Ari El, Valley Village

Los Angeles, May 18 – Joseph Zernik, PhD, of Human Rights Alert (NGO) has requested Rabbi Jonathan Bernhard’s Jewish ethics perspective regarding racketeering in the courts by leaders of the Los Angeles Jewish-legal community, including, but not limited to, Sandor Samuels – Member of the Board of Adat Ari El synagogue. [i] Dr Zernik first met Rabbi Bernhard in early 2007, to reliably inform him of the conduct of Samuels, a major donor to the synagogue. At that time Samuels was Chief Legal Officer of Countrywide, and was listed as responsible for all litigation matters in the corporation:

In early 2007, in their first meeting, Dr Zernik provided Rabbi Bernhard evidence of Samuels’ racketeering in the courts. [i]

In direct response, Samuels initiated retaliation, which continued from 2007 till 2010, and in itself is part of the racketeering pattern. [ii]

In January 2008 Countrywide collapsed, following the publication by the New York Times of fraud by Countrywide’s counsel in the US Court in Pennsylvania – filing of “recreated letters” as evidence – part of the same pattern. [iii]

In March 2008 news was published that the Hon Jeff Bohm, US Bankruptcy in Texas, issued a 72 page Memorandum Opinion, based on a yearlong study by the US Trustee’s office, detailing conduct of Countrywide in courts across the United States, additional evidence of racketeering in the courts. [iv] According to the Memorandum Opinion, Countrywide promised the Hon Bohm to cease such conduct.

The evidence shows that Mr Samuels nevertheless continued the same conduct as Associate General Counsel of Bank of America. [v]

Sandor Samuels was central to one of the biggest frauds in history against homeowners, against shareholders, and against the US Treasury. Rabbi Bernhard has been reliably informed in the matter since 2007. Regardless, Samuels continues to be listed a Board Member of Adat Ari El, Valley Village.

“Most likely, Rabbi Bernhard and Adat Ari El synagogue continue to accept Samuels’ donations to this date, making Rabbi Bernhard and Adat Ari El direct beneficiaries of criminality,” says Dr Zernik. “The fact that Samuels and his like are not prosecuted, is only a reflection of corruption of the US justice system today. It is no excuse for the Jewish community to live in denial of reality.” [vi]
___LINKS:

[I]11-05-15 Request for Jewish ethics perspective by Rabbi Jonathan Bernhard (Adat Ari El) regarding public corruption/racketeering in the courts by leaders of the Los Angeles Jewish-legal community

The questions originated from public corruption and racketeering by Bet Tzedek current and former leaders: Sandor Samuels, David Pasternak, Terry Friedman, and refusal of ADL National Director Abraham Foxman to respond on the matter. Additional questions addressed the ethics duties of US judges such as Alex Kozinski, Richard Posner, and Anthony Kennedy and Jewish religious leaders in view of “corruption of the courts and the legal profession” in California.

Rabbi Brous Rabbi Cunin Rabbi Leider Rabbi Seidler-Feller

Los Angeles, May 13 – Requests for Jewish ethics opinions, have been addressed to four Los Angeles area rabbis, concerning public corruption and racketeering by Bet Tzedek’s leaders, and “corruption of the courts and the legal profession” in California. [[i]]
The four rabbis are:

Rabbi Sharon Brous Ikar Synagogue, Los Angeles;

Rabbi Chaim Nochum Cunin Chabad, Los Angeles;

Rabbi Susan Leider - Temple Betham, Los Angeles;

Rabbi Chaim Seidler-Feller UCLA Hillel, Los Angeles

Joseph Zernik, PhD, of Human Rights Alert (NGO), who addressed the rabbis, has gained substantial experience in analyzing computer fraud in the state and US courts in recent years, and his findings were presented in international computer science and criminology conferences and published in international peer-reviewed journals. His opinions were also supported by opinions of top fraud and computer science experts, and incorporated into an official UN Human Rights Council report. [[ii]]

Dr Zernik has repeatedly highlighted in his writing in recent years the prominent role of Jewish attorneys and judges in racketeering in the Los Angeles courts.

Three of the Los Angeles rabbis, Brous, Leider, and Seidler-Feller are clear in their protest against the death penalty in California, in view of the widespread corruption of the California justice system. [[iii]]

The questions now addressed to the rabbis pertained to:

1) Should Mr Abraham Foxman, National Director of the Anti Defamation League (ADL), opine on defamation, or lack thereof, in stating that leading figures of the Los Angeles Jewish-legal community engage in public corruption and racketeering in the courts?

2) Should Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge of the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, and Anthony Kennedy, Justice of the US Supreme Court, who oversees the 9th Circuit, and Richard Posner, US Circuit Judge, initiate corrective actions in view of the 2010 Professional Staff Report of the UN Human Rights Council, which noted “corruption of the courts and the legal profession - in California“.

3) Should California and US Jewish religious leaders press for corrective actions relative to such conditions.

Asking Jewish rabbis to opine on public matters is a tradition going back at least 1,500 years.

�I know nothing about the circumstances about which you are talking, and don’t want to publicly comment on Mr. Foxman because the only honest things I could say might easily bring me a law suit for slander�. [[iv]]

Rabbi Lerner refused to respond on the ethics duties of US judges and Jewish religious leaders in view of �corruption of the courts and the legal profession�.

Rabbi Lerner is clear in his opposition to the death penalty in California.

Tikkun�s motto is: �to heal, repair, and transform the world.�

Similar questions were addressed to Richard Posner, University of Chicago Law Professor.

Similar questions were previously addressed to Richard Posner, University of Chicago Law School Professor, regarding �corruption of the courts and the legal profession� in California: [[v],[vi]]

Is it reasonably ethical for Anti Defamation League (ADL) National Director Abraham Foxman not to respond on request for opinion regarding public corruption and racketeering in the courts by leaders of the Los Angeles Jewish-legal community?

Are US judges bound by an ethics duty to initiate corrective actions regarding �corruption of the courts and the legal profession�, based on their Oaths of Office?

Are US judges bound by an ethics duty to initiate corrective actions regarding �corruption of the courts and the legal profession�, based on the Code of Conduct of US Judges?

Is Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge of the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, bound by an ethics duty to initiate corrective actions in view of an official 2010 Professional Staff Report of the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council regarding �corruption of the courts and the legal profession� in California?

Is Anthony Kennedy, Justice of the US Supreme Court, who oversees the 9th Circuit, bound by an ethics duty to initiate corrective actions in view of an official 2010 Professional Staff Report of the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council regarding �corruption of the courts and the legal profession� in California?

Richard Posner failed to respond on the questions.

The Oath of Office states: “I… do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States…“

UCLA Human Rights expert Professor Richard Steinberg was also asked to opine regarding refusal of Mr Foxman to respond on the matter.

UCLA Law School Professor Richard Steinberg, Director of the Sanela Diana Jenkins Human Rights Law Project, has so far failed to respond regarding refusal of ADL National Director Foxman to respond regarding public corruption and racketeering in the courts by Los Angeles Jewish-legal community leaders. [[vii]]

Richard Steinberg failed to respond on the questions.

The Project�s mission is �to advance the cause of human rights and international justice around the world.�

ADL was asked to opine on Dr Zernik�s writing, which detailed racketeering in the courts by leaders of Bet Tzedek � the Los Angeles �House of Justice� � an affiliate of the Los Angeles Jewish Federation

Dr Zernik has recently filed a request with Mr Abraham Foxman, National Director of the Anti Defamation League (ADL), for ADL’s opinion regarding Dr Zernik�s writing, which detailed public corruption and racketeering in the courts by leaders of the Los Angeles Jewish-Legal community. Dr Zernik�s writing pertains to current and former officers of BET TZEDEK – the Los Angeles “HOUSE OF JUSTICE”, an affiliate organization of the Greater Los Angeles Jewish Federation. [[viii],[ix]]

Dr Zernik has expressed his concern that his writing, and the positions held by such individuals, are likely to lead people to conclude that the Los Angeles Jewish community holds in high esteem, or even as its leaders, individuals, who are engaged in corruption of the courts and violations of Human Rights. Moreover, Dr Zernik has pointed out the large number of readers of his writings.

In order to remove any doubts on such important matter, and knowing that ADL has a good-size legal department and considerable resources, Dr Zernik has requested a formal opinion by ADL on such writing. With the letter, large volume of evidence has been provided to ADL.

Abraham Foxman failed to respond on the question.

ADL�s stated mission is “to stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment to all.�

Current and former senior officers of Bet Tzedek, the “House of Justice” are involved in racketeering in the courts.

Terry Friedman David Pasternak Sandor Samuels

Dr Zernik�s writing is supported by opinions of fraud experts of the highest reputation, and are part of conduct that was opined in the 2010 Human Rights Council of the United Nations as �corruption of the courts and the legal profession in California�. [[x]]
Over the past several years, Dr Zernik has often written, published online, and distributed by email to a large recipient list materials, which may be deemed by some as defamatory of key Jewish organizations in Los Angeles, California:

BET TZEDEK, the “HOUSE OF JUSTICE”, and

THE GREATER LOS ANGELES JEWISH FEDERATION, with whom it is affiliated.

His writing detail public corruption and racketeering in the courts by current and former senior officers of BET TZEDEK:

SANDOR SAMUELS, current and former President;

DAVID PASTERNAK, former President (possibly current member of the Board of Directors)

TERRY FRIEDMAN, former Executive Director.

SANDOR SAMUELS also lists himself as a Board Member in a number of other prominent Los Angeles Jewish organizations:

AMERICAN JEWISH UNIVERSITY, LOS ANGELES

ZIEGLER SCHOOL OF RABBINIC STUDIES

SHALHEVET SCHOOL

ADAT ARI EL SYNAGOGUE, VALLEY VILLAGE

Bet Tzedek and the Greater Los Angeles Jewish Federation have refused to respond on requests to state whether they have grievance procedures, to address complaints of public corruption and racketeering in the courts by their leaders.

S t r a t o s p a h i sCorruption in Our Courts: What It Looks Like and Where It Is Hidden

a b s t r a c t . Recent surveys and events indicate that judicial corruption could be a significant problem in the United States. This Note builds an economic model of bribery to better understand the incentives behind this pernicious phenomenon. It then compiles a data set of discovered incidents of judicial bribery in the United States to test the effectiveness of our antijudicial-corruption institutions. This analysis suggests that our institutions are particularly ineffective at preventing and uncovering judicial bribery in civil disputes and traffic hearings.

a u t h o r . Yale Law School, J.D. 2009; Universidad Complutense de Madrid, M.A. 2005; Dartmouth College, B.A. 2004. I am grateful to Professor Susan Rose-Ackerman for inspiring my interest in this topic and for her invaluable support and feedback over many drafts of this
Note. I am also indebted to the members of The Yale Law Journal Notes Committee—in
particular to Victoria Weatherford for her patience, meticulous editing, and insightful
comments. Thanks also to Sam Ferguson for his helpful feedback. All errors that remain are of course mine alone.

Citizens United v Federal Election Commission in the US Supreme Court -so far only a simulated Judgment record has been discovered…

FEC FOIA officer Attorney Sally Bacon is again asked to provide a signed FOIA response letter and a valid, authenticated judgment record. Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (FEC) is a landmark case, but the February 22, 2010 Judgment record is nowhere to be found. FEC produced an invalid, unauthenticated judgment record with an unsigned Freedom of Information (FOIA) response letter…

Los Angeles, May 17 – Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (FEC) (08-205) is no doubt one of the landmark decisions of the US Supreme Court. It was reported to have accorded corporations First Amendment rights, “decision holding that corporations and unions can spend unlimited amounts of money in election campaigns… a stunning example of judicial activism…” [[i]] However, a valid and effectual copy of the February 22, 2010 Judgment in the case – a historic document – is yet to be discovered…
Today, Joseph Zernik, PhD, of Human Rights Alert (NGO) again asked FEC Freedom of Information (FOIA) Officer Attorney Sally Bacon to produce a signed FOIA response on request for a valid February 22, 2010 Judgment and its authentication. [[ii]]

Bacon’s May 9, 2011 FOIA response was unsigned, and it came with an invalid Judgment record, with no authentication at all.

“I believe that she is trying to avoid self-incrimination, and that her FOIA-response was deceptive,” says Dr Zernik.

Recklessly sending false court records and deceptively representing them as valid, authenticated judgments or orders of the courts is a criminal offense.

A fake, simulated record was produced by FEC as the February 22, 2010 Judgment of the US Supreme Court

On May 9, 2011, FEC FOIA Officer Attorney Sally R Bacon provided an unsigned response letter with an invalid record of the February 22, 2010 Judgment and no authentication by the Clerk of the US Supreme Court. [[iii]]

Figure 2: A fake, simulated judgment record, which came with an unsigned cover letter from FEC FOIA Officer Attorney Sally Bacon, and was represented as the authenticated February 22, 2010 Judgment in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission in the US Supreme Court.

The judgment record, which was provided by Attorney Sally Bacon in the FOIA-response by FEC, cannot possibly be deemed a valid court record:

It is a record dated January 21, 2010, whereas the online docket noted the issuance of a Judgment on February 22, 2010.

It is an unsigned record, which bears a stamp certifying that it is a “true copy” of an unsigned original record.

The stamp itself is signed, but not dated. Moreover, the name and authority of the person who signed the stamp (Cynthia Rapp) were not printed below the signature line. Therefore, the signature on the stamp, certifying “true copy” is invalid as well.

Contrary to what was stated in the FOIA response letter [i], the record, which was provided, did not include true and valid authentication by the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States.

A legal dictionary says:

AUTHENTICATION – An attestation made by a proper officer, by which he certifies that a record is in due form of law, and that the person who certifies it is the officer appointed by law to do so… By authentication is also understood whatever act is done either by the party or some other person with a view of causing an instrument to be known and identified.

It should be of particular concern that FEC, like other parties to the litigation, so far has not produced a copy of the February 22, 2010 Judgment as served on FEC by the Clerk of the Supreme Court.

Instead, the record, which was produced, was derived from the PACER docket of the US Court, District of Columbia. However, to the degree that the record, which was provided, was a record filed and entered in the US Court, District of Columbia, it was missing the NEF (Notice of Electronic Filing), which is deemed the valid authentication record by the US district courts under electronic filing. [[iv]]

Entry of February 22, 2010 Judgment remains ambiguous in the online records of the Supreme Court.

The online records of the Supreme Court and previous attempts to discover a valid record of the February 22, 2010 Judgment support the notion that no valid record of the February 22, 2010 Judgment exists.

Figure 2: Excerpts from the online docket of the US Supreme Court inCitizens United v Federal Election Commission

“Issuing” of orders and judgments, which are neither certified, nor entered, is a common fraud in the lower courts. [[vi]] The February 22, 2010 Judgment was not found among the online records of the US Supreme Court.

The online records of the US Supreme Court [[vii]] also show that the Journal for January 21, 2010, the date of the presumed decision, is missing the typical introductory remark, found in many (but not all) dates of seating of the court, regarding certification and entry of the orders and decisions.

For example, on January 25, 2010, the immediate next seating of the Court, the Journal says:

The Chief Justice said:

“We have issued orders today, they have been duly entered and certified, and filed with the Clerk.” [underline added -jz]

Previous attempts failed to discover the February 22, 2010 Judgment, as served on parties to the litigation.

The March 29, 2011 response from Office of Solicitor General to FOIA Request, states:

Neither of these records were found in review of records maintained by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).

The March 24, 2011 response from the Civil Division of the US Department of Justice to FOIA request states:

The Civil Division does not maintain records relating to that case.

Request was also forwarded to parties in the case, for a copy of the judgment, which was supposed to have been noticed and served. One party responded that the February 22, 2010 Judgment was neither served nor noticed, in apparent violation of Due Process rights. No party responded that a February 22, 2010 Judgment was either noticed or served.

Previous attempts to discover valid and effectual judicial records in paper court files of the US Supreme Court uniformly failed. Access to the electronic records of the US Supreme Court was and is denied, in apparent violation of First Amendment and Due Process rights.

Efforts to discover a copy of the February 22, 2010 Judgment inCitizens United v Federal Election Commission continue.

Simulated litigation is today a common practice in both the state and US courts.

Simulated legal process is defined in the Texas Penal Code(§32.48) as follows:

A person commits an offense if the person recklessly causes to be delivered to another any document that simulates a summons, complaint, judgment, or other court process…

The practice of Simulated Litigation is the most common form of corruption of judges and clerks in both the state and US courts today. It is common in all levels of the US courts, in both obscure and high profile cases.

Two examples of recent cases of Simulated Litigation, which were widely reported by media as valid court actions are:

Log Cabin Republicans v United States of America et al (2:04-cv-08425) in the US District Court, Central District of California (US Judge Virginia Phillips), and its counterpart, the appeal (10-56634) still underway in the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit. The underlying matter is the disputed Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy of the armed forces. [[ix]]

Securities and Exchange Commission v Bank of America Corporation (1:09-cv-06829) in the US District Court, Southern District of New York (US Judge Jed Rakoff). The underlying matter is the unlawful taking of $5.8 billions in bonuses by banking executives during the Merrill Lynch- Bank of America merger. [[x]]

Invalid case management systems in the courts are the enabling tools of Simulated Litigation

The practice of Simulated Litigation is probably as old as the courts themselves. Over centuries, record keeping of the courts, the core of Due Process, evolved to prevent it. Implementation of computerized case management systems in the state and US courts, where the nature of signatures and authentication was left vague and ambiguous, is claimed to be central to the widespread practice of Simulated Litigation.
Request for review of the evidence of fraud in the computerized records of the US District Courts and Courts of Appeals (PACER and CM/ECF) was previously forwarded to Harvard Law Professor Yochai Benkler, an expert on computers and the law. [[xi]]

Needless to say, computer technology could have had the opposite effect, enhancing court transparency and integrity, if correctly implemented.

In conclusion:

So far, the records of Citizens United v Federal Election Commission(08-205) remain vague and ambiguous, like the vague and ambiguous records of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394 (1886), where the Supreme Court was reported to have recognized corporations as persons for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Citizens United v Federal Election Commission presumably accorded corporations First Amendment rights. However, the First Amendment right of the people, for access to valid and effectual records of the Supreme Court of the United States, is denied.

So far, there is no way to ascertain, whether in fact a valid and effectual February 22, 2010 Judgment in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission was ever certified and entered.

The US Supreme Court’s case management system, a key to establishing the validity, or lack thereof, of various Supreme Court records, remains under a veil of secrecy, in apparent violation of First Amendment and Due Process rights. Claims of online publication of false and deliberately misleading records by the office of the Clerk of the US Supreme Court were part of the previous request for impeachment of Clerk William Suter. [[xii]]

LINKS:[i] 0-01-21 Citizens United v Federal Election Commission 130 S.Ct. 876 (2010) at the Supreme Court of the United States – opinion of Prof Chemerinsky and Wikipedia overviewhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/41364083/[ii] 11-05-13 Repeat request for acknowledgment of receipt of a request for a signed FOIA response by FEC in re: February 22, 2010 Judgment in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (08-805).http://www.scribd.com/doc/55610098/[iii] 11-05-10 Reply on FEC Response on FEC Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request, No. 2011-46, in re: February 22, 2010 Judgment in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (08-805) -shttp://www.scribd.com/doc/55053218/[iv] Regarding the NEFs as authentication records of the US courts under electronic filing, see:
11-01-07 Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al (10-56634) at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit – Motion to Intervene and Concomitantly Filed Papers as published in the online PACER docketshttp://www.scribd.com/doc/46516034/[v] 11-03-16 Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (08-205) in the Supreme Court of the United States – Review and Compiled Online Recordshttp://www.scribd.com/doc/50900898/[vi] For review of false issuance of invalid records in the US District Court and the US Court of Appeals (PACER and CM/ECF), see:
11-02-09 Press Release: ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, Insists on Conducting a Pretense Appeal from a Pretense Judgment of the US District Courthttp://www.scribd.com/doc/49070315/
11-01-07 Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al (10-56634) at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit – Motion to Intervene and Concomitantly Filed Papers as published in the online PACER docketshttp://www.scribd.com/doc/46516034/
For review of false issuance of invalid records in the Superior Court of California (eCourt and Sustain), see:
11-04-17 PRESS RELEASE: Lomas v Bank of America (KC059379) – Fraud turns into Extortion in the Los Angeles Superior Courthttp://www.scribd.com/doc/53212710/
09-04-20 Prof Eliyahu Shamir’s Opinion Letter re: Sustain – the Case Management System of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeleshttp://www.scribd.com/doc/46069337/[vii] 11-03-16 Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (08-205) in the Supreme Court of the United States – Review and Compiled Online Recordshttp://www.scribd.com/doc/50900898/[viii] 00-04-00 Report of the First Vienna Convention – Strengthening Judicial Integrity, CICP-6, United Nations Drug Control and Crime Prevention Center (2000) (See p5-6)http://www.scribd.com/doc/50364404/
01-03-01 Strengthening Judicial Integrity Against Corruption CICP-10, United Nations Drug Control and Crime Prevention Center (2001) (see p5-6http://www.scribd.com/doc/48103697/[ix] 11-02-09 Press Release: ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, Insists on Conducting a Pretense Appeal from a Pretense Judgment of the US District Courthttp://www.scribd.com/doc/49070315/[x] Zernik, Joseph: Securities and Exchange Commission v Bank of America Corporation – Simulated Litigation and Simulated Banking Regulation in the United Stateshttp://www.scribd.com/doc/44663232/[xi] 11-04-14 PRESS RELEASE: Harvard Law Professor Yochai Benkler has been asked to review the evidence of large-scale computer fraud in the US courtshttp://www.scribd.com/doc/52993968/[xii] 11-01-25 Request for Impeachment of US Supreme Court Clerk WILLIAM SUTER shttp://www.scribd.com/doc/47539382/
____
Joseph Zernik, PhDHuman Rights Alert (NGO)
Human Rights Alert is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human Rights violations by the justice systems of the State of California and the United States in Los Angeles County, California, and beyond. Human Rights Alert focuses on the unique role of computerized case management systems in the precipitous deterioration of the integrity of the justice system in the United States.http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/Flag Counter: 119http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/Total Reads: 420,060
Followers: 600http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alerthttp://twitter.com/inproperinlahttp://www.liveleak.com/user/jz12345Total Item Views:329,053_____________________________
WHAT DID THE EXPERT SAY ABOUT THE CURRENT FINANCIAL CRISIS?* “…a system in which only the little people have to obey the law, while the rich, and bankers especially, can cheat and defraud without consequences.”http://www.scribd.com/doc/50753639/
Prof Paul Krugman, MIT (2011)
_____________________________WHAT DID THE EXPERTS SAY ABOUT THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA?* ”…judges tried and sentenced a staggering number of people for crimes they did not commit.”
Prof David Burcham, Dean, Loyola Law School, LA (2001)http://www.scribd.com/doc/29043589/
* “This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states… and judges must share responsibility when innocent people are convicted.”
Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, Irvine Law School (2001)http://www.scribd.com/doc/27433920/
* “Innocent people remain in prison”* “…the LA Superior Court and the DA office, the two other parts of the justice system that the Blue Panel Report recommends must be investigated relative to the integrity of the system, have not produced any response that we know of…”LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006)http://www.scribd.com/doc/24902306/_____________________________
WHAT DID THE EXPERTS SAY ABOUT THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN CALIFORNIA?* “…corruption of the courts and the legal profession and discrimination by law enforcement in California.”
United Nations Human Rights Council Staff Report (2010)http://www.scribd.com/doc/38566837/_____________________________
WHAT DID THE EXPERTS SAY ABOUT THE STATE COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES?
* “On July 26, 2010, Laurence Tribe, Senior Counsel for the United States Department of Justice, Access to Justice Initiative, delivered an important speech to the Conference of Chief Justices, challenging them to halt the disintegration of our state justice systems before they become indistinguishable from courts of third world nations. “Prof Laurence Tribe, Harvard Law School (2010), per National Defender Leadership Institute (2010)http://www.nlada.net/library/article/national_dojspeechto%20chiefjustice07-26-2010_gideonalert
_____________________________WHAT DID THE EXPERTS SAY ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES?* “More than 100 law professors have signed on to a letter released today that proposes congressional hearings and legislation aimed at fashioning “mandatory and enforceable” ethics rules for Supreme Court justices for the first time. The effort, coordinated by the liberal Alliance for Justice, was triggered by “recent media reports,” the letter said, apparently referring to stories of meetings and other potential conflicts of interest involving Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas among others.”
More than 100 law professors, as reported by the Blog of the Legal Times (February 2011)http://www.scribd.com/doc/49586436/
_____________________________WHAT DID CHIEF JUDGE OF THE US COURT OF APPEALS, 5TH CIRCUIT, SAY ABOUT THE US JUSTICE SYSTEM?* “The American legal system has been corrupted almost beyond recognition…”
Chief Judge, US Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, Edith Jones, speaking before the Federalist Society of Harvard Law School (February 2003)http://www.scribd.com/doc/50137887/
_____________________________WHAT DID THE CHAIR OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE SAY ABOUT THE US JUSTICE SYSTEM?* In a speech in Georgetown University, Senator Leahy, Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee called for a “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” on the US Department of Justice. Transcript of Senator Leahy speech (2009)http://www.scribd.com/doc/38472251/

11-12-10 Where should Occupy go next? Civil Disobedience in the footsteps of Thoreau and Gandhi!http:// www.scribd.com/doc/75348301/12-06-08 Courts and Judges as racketeering enterprises under RICO (the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) - key element in the current financial crisishttp://www.scribd.com/doc/96504009/Secede! The US in its current form is simply unmanageable...

What did the experts say?

* דוח סייג לזכויות האדם נכלל בדוח התקופתי של האו"ם לגבי זכויות האדם בישראל (2013), בלוויית ההערה: "חוסר יושרה בכתבים האלקטרוניים של בית המשפט העליון, בתי המשפט המחוזיים, ובתי הדין למוחזקי משמורת בישראל".* The Human Rights Alert (NGO) submission to the Human Rights Council of the United Nations was incorporated into the 2010 Periodic Review Report regarding Humnan Rights in the United States, with the note: "corruption of the courts and the legal profession and discrimination by law enforcement in California".* The Human Rights Alert (NGO) submission to the Human Rights Council of the United Nations was incorporated into the 2013 Periodic Review Report regarding Humnan Rights in Israel, with the note: "lack of integrity of the electronic records of the Supreme Court, the district courts and the detainees courts in Israel."

The United States

* "...it's difficult to find a fraud of this size on the U.S. court system in U.S. history... where you have literally tens of thousands of fraudulent documents filed in tens of thousands of cases." Raymond Brescia, a visiting professor at Yale Law School

* Los Angeles County is"the epicenter of the epidemic of real estate and mortgage fraud."FBI (2004)

* “…judges tried and sentenced a staggering number of people for crimes they did not commit."Prof David Burcham, Loyola Law School, LA (2000)

* “This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states… and judges must share responsibility when innocent people are convicted.”Prof Erwin Chemerinksy, Irvine Law School (2000)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/239647129/The HRA submission was incorporated into the 2015 HRC Professional Staff Report on the United States with the note: :“HRA NGO recommended restoring the integrity of the IT systems of the courts, under accountability to the Congress, with the goal of making such systems as transparent as possible to the public at large.”

[2] Human Rights Alert (NGO) submission for the 2013 UPR of the State of Israel was incorporated into the UN Human Rights Council Professional Staff Report with the note: "Lack of integrity in the electronic record systems of the Supreme Court, the district courts and the detainees' courts in Israel".

2012-06-04 Human Right Alert's Submission; 2013 UPR of the State of Israel: Integrity, or lack thereof, of the

[3] Human Rights Alert (NGO) submission for the 2010 UPR of the United States was incorporated into the UN Human Rights Council Professional Staff Report with the note: "Corruption of the courts and the legal profession and discrimination by law enforcement in California."

2010-04-19 Human Rights Alert (NGO) submission to the United Nations Human Rights Council for the

2010 Review (UPR) of Human Rights in the United States as incorporated into the UPR staff report:

[1] 10-10-01 United Nations Human Rights Council Records for 2010 Review (UPR) of Human Rights in the United States, where Human Rights Alert (NGO) submission was incorporated with a note referring to "corruption of the courts and the legal profession and discrimination by law enforcement in California."http://www.scribd.com/doc/38566837/http://www.scribd.com/doc/108663259/